July 13. 2008 02:49

Ordinarily, I wouldn't be opposed to groups banning others. I definetly think 'forcing' a group to accept everyone goes against freedom to associate. I would never want the LDS Church to have to marry gays in their temples for example just because it may become legal in the government. The bigger question for me is... if this is the TRUE GOSPEL of CHRIST, why are we excommunicating normal, average people bearing their chests? They aren't missionaries out in the field, they are RMs.. just like my hubby who bears his chest at the pool. Have we become this rigid in rules? Was the sin so heinous to be x'd? I can understand if they were Missionaries in the field, but it makes me question the organization doing the banning when the act was so harmless.

Lisey

July 13. 2008 03:00

I think it would behoove us to remember two things:

A. The church is a private organization that can do what it wants to. It is not bound by any first-amendment rights to allow freedom of speech (i.e., political) without redress.

B. Freedom comes at a cost and that is consequence. Good consequence, bad consequence, unintended consequence: It makes no difference. An individual only has true freedom when he considers that he may bear tremendous consequences for his actions--and does it anyway.

I do admire what this kid's doing with the calendar. I think it needs to be done. I'm doing it, too (though not so calendar-ish) and I fully expect I may come under fire for it. I (and my family) am prepared for that. I've made my choices.

On the other hand, I don't like the expectation that one can poke at a lion without impunity and then squeal like a stuck pig when one gets bitten. (I believe he said in the press that he didn't like that his first amendment rights were being violated.)

If the core principle is that the church is all about freedom, well...that's problematic. Our doctrine is of agency, but one still has to live with the outcome of what one chose to do, good, bad, or indifferent.

MoJo

July 13. 2008 10:39

Mojo,

I agree... the question then is... Who gets to decide the outcome? I can understand universal laws that the Church has, but mostly excommunication falls on a local level, with local leadership being able to at their whim determine the fate of others. Depending on the bishop, your fate is in the wind. It is very very subjective and working only with flawed humans who have biases and their own issues.

Lisey

July 13. 2008 11:51

Lisey, I doubt very highly this originated at the local level. I think, like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six]September Six[/url], it'll come down from the top and get implemented at the local level.

MoJo

July 14. 2008 00:35

The more I read about this story - it's all over the news... it would appear he was ex'd for more than just a calendar. None of the models were ex'd and the Church would never discuss why they ex'd him. He says 2 of the 3 reasons were involving the calendar and tithing/garment stuff... but what of the 3rd? Perhaps the Church had a reason to ex him - maybe he's into more than just making male model calendars. Either way, he says he's fine with the decision and it was the best thing for both parties.

Lisey

July 14. 2008 01:20

Lisey and Mojo...

I really enjoyed your comments. This man states that he is inactive, doesn't pay tithing, and doesn't mind if he is ex'ed. So, from what I can see, he was making the calendar as a salacious activity....just like Playboy when it ran the centerfold of the "Mormon girl". There's something about evil wanting to associate with what is known to be pure.

Cyn

July 14. 2008 09:44

Cyn,

Have you seen the calendar? I think it's great! They are totally hot men who show the world that our RMs don't have to have 'apostle parts' and nerdy glasses. They bear their testimony on their page and say why they are LDS. It is highly different than playboy... it's more like Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.

Lisey

July 14. 2008 13:05

I think I don't give mere humans that much credit to invalidate someone's eternal salvation just because of an excommunication. I think of the intellectuals who throughout LDS History have been kicked out. Most of them were honest, good people - some who refused to accept Poligamy. Leaders make mistakes and excommunication of many members could be in that category. Will the Lord hold it against the people who were ex'd? I certainly hope not.

Lisey

July 14. 2008 14:25

Mojodon, are you saying that being a "private organization" and "God's kingdom on earth" are mutually exclusive states of being? I assure you, it's not. One's a legal designation for purposes of government regulation and the other a spiritual one.

<blockquote>however, if you proclaim yourself as the mechanism on earth for souls to return to God, then your obligations to those you serve is much greater than any 'private organization'.</blockquote>

Being designated a private organization for governmental classifications purposes has nothing to do with its spiritual mission.

That said...

Look at it from the church's SPIRITUAL point of view. Excommunication is seen as part of the repentance process. Clean break, clean slate, a mulligan, a do-over. Naturally, that's the more charitable viewpoint.

The other, less savory viewpoint, is that this was motivated by the church's publicity department's need to distance itself from anything they see as improper. (Which is, actually, what I believe.) Do you REALLY think God's going to hold it against those who've been wrongly punished by MEN who are FALLIBLE themselves?

I don't. The guy didn't break any commandments. He didn't sin.

Neither did the September Six, and I think that was also a calculated ambush to make a point.

So I'm watching all this very carefully, because I'm about to publish a book that's going to get me in as much hot water as this man is, albeit I don't have the ancillary issues of being inactive, a non-tithe payer, or a non-garment wearer. I do what I'm supposed to do. I'm just a storyteller with an edge. And it may swing back to cut me off at the knees, but I'm prepared for that and I don't think God's going to hold it against me.

MoJo

July 14. 2008 14:32

Mmmm, let me clarify.

I don't think the church we have now is the one Joseph built or envisioned.

I'm willing to jump through the tithing hoop because that's showing sacrifice and service to God.

I do believe in the temple covenants and eternal marriage and striving for perfection in the afterlife to attain godhood possibly maybe.

But I just don't believe in the church bureaucracy and I think that's what we're pretty much reduced to.

MoJo

July 16. 2008 00:36

Mojo,

You and I share a similiar viewpoint on the Church. Humans err, and God has to work with that - errors and all. I don't think God would ever hold an innocent accountable for the errors of some leader in the Church exing them. Just as I don't think God makes all those who lived good, righteous lives to sit in Spirit Prison waiting for some human to know their name to do their work.

By the way, will you please post your libertarian creed post on here?

Lisey

July 16. 2008 04:17

I would like to ask this question:

Where does one draw the line on the temple ordinances and the authority to perform those ordinances? If the church claims anything as "a priori", it is that the priesthood is required to perform ordinances [and men and women perform those ordinances, remember]. The authority lies in the church....or does it? If not, where does it reside?

I always try to remember that Joseph and Oliver never really identified the date on which the "higher" priesthood was given to them, and also they differ on what actually happened. So what is the truth on this matter?

Cyn

July 16. 2008 04:34

By the way, will you please post your libertarian creed post on here?

Ask and you shall receive. My apologies for being a laggard; I'm still hacking up my lungs at night.

Cyn, I've actually been stewing about those things in the last little while myself.

1. Temple ordinances: I don't know. I mean, if the only (read: closest) authority we have on earth is encapsulated in this bureaucracy and one feels s/he needs that at this time (i.e., if they don't think they'll get a pass in the next life if they reject the ordinances because they rejected the bureaucracy), then I guess you jump through the hoops.

2. Priesthood ordinances outside the temple. I have a very solid opinion that I (a woman) do not need to have a penis to give a blessing. I do not believe that I (as a daughter of God) would not be able to call upon the power of God and Goddess (Father and Mother, if you will) to give my sick kid a blessing if no penis with a vial is around to do it.

As for if the truth of it matters, I don't know. Truth gets revealed in a lot of ways and occasionally, the truth takes its own little Machiavellian route to get to us.

MoJo

July 16. 2008 04:35

And oh, the "penis with a vial" thing is not meant to be man-bashing or man-hating or anything else. It's an encapsulation of what I think the dividing line is in our religious culture.

No pun intended.

MoJo

July 21. 2008 08:38

Mojo, I agree totally.

I have given blessings to my grandchildren; and I believe that the blessing was fulfilled by the Lord. When someone exclaims, "But You're a Woman!", I reply, "Don't you think the Lord knew that when He answered me?"

Cyn